Kako rasplakati Eshila? - o pravnotragičnoj restriktivnosti u tumačenju pojma 'prelaz potraživanja'

Abstract

Tokom 2015. godine u Republici Srbiji usvojen je novi Zakon o izvršenju i obezbeđenju koji je počeo da se primenjuje od 01.06.2016. godine. Bez bilo kakvog ustezanja se može reći da je donošenje ovog Zakona još jednom 'usmerilo reflektore' na nekoliko ključnih nedostataka našeg savremenog zakonopisanja: 1) Prenormiranost (hiperinflacija normi). O ovoj zloćudnoj pojavi u našoj normativnoj praksi dovoljno govori okolnost da je Zakon o izvršnom postupku (2004)2 imao samo 306 članova, Zakon o izvršenju i obezbeđenju (2011)3 nešto više: 363 člana, a novi Zakon o izvršenju i obezbeđenju (2015) ukupno 551 član.4 Okolnost da je Novi zakon za 200 članova duži od svog prethodnika ukazuje na 'apsolutno nepodoban pokušaj' zakonodavca da kazuistički uredi sve pojedinačne situacije naivno zaboravljajući da tako nešto do sada, niti jednom zakonodavcu nije pošlo za rukom. Realnost je mnogo inventivnija od bilo kog zakonopisca. Otuda ovaj svestan svoje nesavršenosti mora istu priznati, kreirajući unapred, odgovarajuće instrumente, kao što su: pravna načela (principi) i pravni standardi koji su podobni za razrešenje svih potencijalno spornih situacija. Kao što je za privredu jedne države prihvatljiva samo umerena inflacija u pogledu porasta nivoa cena i smanjenja kupovne moći novca, tako je i za njen pravni sistem nekontrolisano gomilanje zakona i drugih propisa neka vrsta 'poročne zavisnosti koja rađa potrebu za novom i sve većom dozom'. Hiperinflacija normi razara samu suštinu pravnog poretka. Laički rečeno, 'od šume se ne vidi drveće'. 2) Nedoslednost (nepostojanost). Izmena nekog zakona još uvek ne znači promenu na bolje. Svaka zakonodavna novina donekle utiče na pravnu sigurnost, naročito ako se radi o potpunom odstupanju od tradicije kao što je to čest slučaj u srpskom pravu. Izvlačenje ili pomera 'jedne cigle' iz složene tvorevine pravnog poretka može da dovede do urušavanja celog sistema ili njegovog značajnog dela. Ako svaka nova vlada ima potrebu da se pohvali setom sistemskih - materijalnopravnih i procesnih zakona, onda pravni sistem koji na ovim zakonima počiva ne može da se podiči naročitom pravnom sigurnošću. Ovo naročito ako se ima na umu da pravni sistem jedne države ne čine samo zakoni, već i praksa sudova i upravnih organa koja ne može da se ustali ako se zakoni besomučno menjaju u sve kraćim vremenskim intervalima. Po pravilu u periodu od dve do tri godine nadležni organi na osnovu 'taze propisa' donesu nekoliko odluka koje budu ispitane na višim instancama i potom objavljene, tako da učesnici u pravnom prometu naziru kako pravosuđe 'diše' u pogledu određene norme. Međutim, već u sledećem trenutku se na nekom forumu, često i pod uticajem 'dobro plaćenih nadrikonsultanata', zaključuje da ovo do sada uopšte nije valjalo, usvaja se novi zakon i sve počinje 'Jovo nanovo'.5 'Strani investitori' koji zatraže tumačenje određene norme u srpskom pravu najčešće ostaju zatečeni njima nerazumljivom interpretacijom uobičajenom za primenu prava kod nas, 'tako je bilo po starom zakonu, po novom zakonu je nešto drugačije, ali ne mora da znači da će sudovi tako i suditi'. Ono što se u toj vrsti 'zakonodavnog avanturizma' naročito zaboravlja jeste okolnost da je jedan zakon daleko lakše usvojiti nego primeniti,6 te da odličnu ocenu zaslužuje samo zakon koji je dobro napisan i još bolje primenjen.7 Sve napred navedeno čini nemogućim objavljivanje pouzdanih komentara takvih zakona od strane dokazanih 'pravnih autoriteta' koji bi sa svoje strane odgovarajućim smernicama svakako doprineli ujednačenoj primeni prava. Upravo ovi nedostaci koji se zbirno mogu opisati i kao opšta pravna nesigurnost, posmatrani kroz konkretnu pravnu situaciju sudskog tumačenja norme iz člana 48 ZIO (2015), dospeli su u ovom radu, u središte pažnje našeg istraživanja.

In the centre of attention in this paper, the author has laid the Art. 48 in the new Law on enforcement and securing of claims. This provision regulates an exception to the principle of formal legality in enforcement procedure ruling that enforcement shall be ordered and levied also based on the petition and for the benefit of a person who is not designated as creditor in an enforceable document, if such person proves by a public or document authenticated in accordance with law that a claim has been transferred to him or that has been assigned to him in another manner. In the recent decision rendered by the Commercial Court of Appeal in Belgrade (3 Iž 713/16) as of January 5. 2017., the Court draws a sharp distinction between the transfer of claim by operation of law (srb. 'prelaz potraživanja') and contractual transfer of claim (srb. 'prenos potraživanja'), arguing that the succession in all enforcement creditor's rights is possible only in a first case. That practically means that the one who has acquired a claim on the basis of companies merger will be entitled to stand in the shoes of the creditor, and on the contrary, the buyer of the claim who concluded the properly notarized assignment contract, could not initiate enforcement proceedings in his favour. Such narrow interpretation of the transfer of claim in enforcement procedure, the author considers totally unacceptable. Any legal phenomenon can be understood so that is interpreted by a number of methods of interpretation. i) Linguistic (textual) interpretation of the respective norm in previous pieces of legislation: the Law of Enforcement procedure (2004) and Law on enforcement and securing of claims (2011), and comparative analysis of legal texts in the region of Southeast Europe regulating the same subject-matter, author concludes that the essence of the norm ruling the transfer of claim in enforcement procedure is not changed. ii) Historical interpretation of the norm as set down in Art. 48 examined on the basis of preparatory work, in particular the explanatory memorandum to the draft law, public hearings on the draft law, as well as the parliamentary debate on the draft law could not come to the conclusion that the relevant norm should be interpreted narrowly. If there was the intention of the legislator to do some changes in the previous norm, the amendments were planned to be adopted in a completely different direction to spread, not to restrict the exceptions to the principle of formal legality i.e. to cover the assignment of claims on the basis of executive instruments and authentic documents. iii) Systematic interpretation of Art. 48 of the new Law on enforcement and securing of claims does not assure us to the necessity of a narrow interpretation. Every legal rule is part of a complex entity and could not be interpreted separately from the other rule. If we carefully examine the meaning of the term the transfer of claim in: Law on enforcement and securing of claims as a same legal source, Code of obligation and Company Law as the related legal sources, there is no room for conclusion that the acquirer of the claim under the law obtains wider power than the one who buy the claim under the contract of cession. iv) The author strongly believes that such narrow interpretation of Art. 48 entirely miss the reason behind the respective norm (ratio legis). This restrictive interpretation of this rule does not correspond to the demands of life, not business practices prevailing in the circle of people involved in the assignment of receivables. It is not clear what legal values or interest the Court protects exercising such discretion, if the debtor's legal position in enforcement proceedings in any way is not compromised by cession. On the other side, urging the assignee that already buys the claim with enforceable document (executive extra-judicial mortgage) to the litigation procedure to prove his claim, totally jeopardizes the non performing loans - NPL market. The creation of artificial boundaries between voluntary assignment and assignment by the law certainly does not contribute to the establishment of the rule of law and the confidence of citizens and businesses in the judicial system of the Republic of Serbia. For these and other reasons outlined above, the author is convinced that a narrow interpretation of Art. 48 in the Law on enforcement and securing of claims should be reconsidered in the interests of legal certainty and corrected as soon as possible in accordance with the real meaning of the respective norm.